[Taylor Ellis]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Taylor;

Sounds like an interesting issue and I don't have the experience to give an opinion supported by anything more than speculation, so I won't for ONCE wade in.

But a note to the moderators: this would seem to me a good topic to split into a new topic before a lot of people start answering.

Or Taylor could just start a new Topic ? ( Taylor I would wait a day or so to see if the split happens before starting a new one: Just a suggestion. )

But I would be VERY interested to read what Stephen Hand or any of the other experts could tell us.

[Patrick Kelly]

Good idea Jean. Done.

[Elling Polden]

Shield, shield, shield.
or
Armour armour armour

In an fight between a two unarmoured men, the fighter with the shield has a huge advantage.
In a armoured fight, this advantage is negated by the lacking ability of the one handed sword to penetrate armour.

[Stephen Hand]

Silver writes “That all maner of double weapons, or weapons to be used with both hands, haue aduantage against the single Rapier or single Sword, there is no question to be made."

I have a chapter in Volume II of my new book, English Swordsmanship on Sword vs sword and buckler. Now Silver doesn't cover this combination, so the chapter is based on my discoveries using his fights and principles. If the guy with the sword attacks, he exposes his arm to a counterattack. If he parries from Gardant Fight, he is vulnerable to a Tread Through (an offensive shield knock - i.e. to having his sword pinned by his opponent's buckler) or just to an offensive buckler strike. Basically if the buckler guy can use both arms against the swordsman's one, the swordsman is stuffed.

Against a large shield it's worse, except that there are opportunities to use the swordsman's shield to protect yourself if you're clever and he isn't. I occasionally have bouts with these combinations to really challenge myself against less experienced opponents, but you are at an incredible disadvantage.

Cheers
Stephen

[Jean Thibodeau]

I think Elling has a good point: If the longswordsman is well armoured the one handed sword has limited available targets.

The sword and shield guy might be better off not using his sword and using a rondel dagger and close in as close as possible using the shield aggressively to tie up the long sword. ( Guess / speculation not stating a truth ! )

Maybe shield and war hammer or mace would re-give the shield guy an effective offensive option.

If the sword and shield guy is also heavily armoured the shield becomes almost redundant: Could go a long way to explain why shields became smaller and smaller or not used at all when armour coverage becomes extensive.

To get back to the original question lets assume no armour or little more than a helm and short sleeved maille shirt at most because in this case the question of advantage to the sword and shield man seems answered in the positive.

For us less knowledgeable getting into details of what the options are for each fighter would be interesting: How such a fight might look like and what the long swordsman limited options would be ? Controlling the range would be my guess.

With a long single hander like the Gaddhjalt 36" blade reach is as good as most long swords and two handed longsword use gives you less reach with equal blade length, so the user of the longsword might have to use it one handed to get more range.

Longsword being here a hand and a half: Using a true twohander like the A & A English twohander with a 46" blade might be another story, more reach and power to damage shields or beat them down ?

Note: Written and submited before reading Stephen's post

[Tyler Weaver]

[Chuck Russell]

something far worse to a sword n board guy to face is a swordnaxe guy. its hard to beat a sword n axe combo

[Aaron Schnatterly]

[John G. III]

Sword & Shield I agree would probably be quite nasty. But you probably have to establish here certain things, such as the specific types of armor, swords/weapon and shield being used. Perhaps if we can lay those down and try run simulations on them?

I do have a question on this: how would a shield & sword fare against, say, a longsword & short sword/sidearm blade user?

[Aaron Schnatterly]

[Bill Grandy]

Just to bring up the flip side of this, one of the problems of shield use is it's ability to blind the user and bind up one's own weapon if you don't know how to use it properly. From Donald McBane's Expert Sword-Man's Companion:

[John G. III]

They're kinda hard to get, and I have a horrible exchange rate. But I managed to snag a couple. I don't have any European weapons unfortunately, besides a Matador sword which is probably unuseable...

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

Interesting thread!
In an unarmoured situation I would still vote for the sword & shield combination, especially if I had something like this at my disposal

[Felix Wang]

There have been a number of good responses to this issue. It seems to me that if the sword and shield man is significantly less experienced, the swordsman has a couple of ways to even up the odds, and maybe even use the shield to advantage (as Bill Grandy noted - blinding oneself). If the experience is equal, then it seems the odds are with the sword+shield.

[Micha Hofmann]

A very nice thread with very good and interesting responses.

I agree that single handed sword + shield means an significant advantage vs. a sword alone, especially agains a longer sword and if the shield fighter is fighting aggressively.

I once had a couple of "let's try this"-fights using a longsword against a fellow fencer with single handed sword and buckler.

It was a little frustrating at first, because he was alway trying to close distance very fast, while covering/ shuffling my weapon aside with his buckler.
After some glorious defeats ( trying to attack frantically while stepping/ stumbling backwards/ sideways, trying not to make him get close), in got used to the situation and tried getting his buckler away from his center and attacking a different opening, without moving too much.
I started with a classic right Oberhau and quickly struck a Zwerchau under his buckler, as soon as his buckler blocked my first cut. Because he was rushing in, the Zwerchhau went right across his stomach - would have been a fatal blow. The only problem was that he hit me directly on my left elbow, that was way up high, because I was doing the Zwerch... ouch. That day made me wear elbow protectors to sparring ever since...

My suggestions for the "no shield-fighter" would be:

Against a buckler: Try to strike around the buckler with feints/ windings,

Against a larger shield: Try to make you opponent impede himself with his own shield

Both are easier said then done, though... maybe moving to one of you opponents sides might offer an advantage...


(Edit, typo)

[Nathan Robinson]

This topic has been promoted into a Spotlight Topic.

[Stephen Hand]

[Stephen Hand]

[John G. III]

Err, let me rephrase that. I meant think of situations so others can help simulate our ideas, these people being those who have the proper equipment and ability to simulate. I don't have any of the items mentioned above, much less a sparring partner with which we can experiment out any fights, unfortunately.